ECC Upgrade - WF Transport Issues?

Thu Nov 6 05:04:48 EST 2008

Hi again Sue,

Sorry, I misunderstood your email title and assumed you were going through the same pain as me :)

I must say we've had fewer issues from our ECC 6 Dev Box to our target ECC 6 environments once the definitions have been patched up and tweaked in Dev. The only real issues we've had have been with activation failures because of other missing pieces or dodgy runtime buffering. These started to diminish too once I started to religiously regenerate our BoR objects in every target system after each build was applied.

So far to date, we've applied the following OSS Notes, some of which you may already have looked at:

1025249 WF Deadline (888204, 900343)1082156 WF Log (Additional Info)1083317 Multiline Binding1175837 WF 'Return' parameter for Synch Method1228836 Date Binding Upgrade issue1077505 WF Builder Invalid Block WD:344 fix1234971 &WF_ParForEach& syntax1264958 WF Tech Log Chron

If you find others that prove useful to you feel free to let me know :)

Regards,

Mike GT

From: keohan at ll.mit.eduTo: sap-wug at mit.eduDate: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:41:06 -0500Subject: RE: ECC Upgrade - WF Transport Issues?

Hi Mike,
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough answer.  I probably neglected to specify that although these WF Definitions were originally created in 4.6c, they’ve been changed after our Dev box was upgraded to ECC 6.0.   Which is why this is so frustrating – these definitions are fine in our Dev box which is ECC 6; they run and everything.  Then we transport them to QA and get errors (which I would have expected to get in Dev).

I am still plowing through OSS notes though.  

It would be one thing if I was concerned about running instances of the old workflows, but I have gotten lucky (I think) in that the business seems to have bought off on clearing out all our ‘old’ 4.6c workflow instances.

But thank you for enlightening all of us!

----
Susan R. Keohan
SAP Workflow Specialist
Enterprise Applications
Information Services Department
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street, LI-200
Lexington, MA. 02420
781-981-3561
keohan at LL.MIT.EDU

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike GambierSent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:27 PMTo: sap-wug at mit.eduSubject: RE: ECC Upgrade - WF Transport Issues?

Hi Sue, 
We're at the tail-end of a long protracted code merge between 4.6c and ECC 6 and our experiences of the whole WF Transport area are these:

1. SAP categorically does NOT support transporting 4.6c changes to ECC 6 definitions. And from what we've been told they never will either, despite our complaints that they need to consider they're existing customers who can't just upgrade overnight.

2. SAP expects clients to upgrade their definitions once and once only. And therefore their migration tools and programs are written to update the new tables from the 'old' tables once and once only.

3. Basically speaking you have to assume that most changes to containers and container elements will NOT be Transportable and will have to be manually applied directly in ECC 6. Thankfully, binding changes seem to be unaffected for the most part although there too some things have crept in that might catch you because of unicode parsing (there's new syntax added by SWDD for type definitions that you can't add in 4.6c).

4. Some brand new WF Definition features have to be defaulted but these values may not be ideal for you. For instance we have chosen to stick to the 'old' STRUCTURE PERSISTENCE conatiner tables (SWW_CONTOB) but we need to explicitly state this in the WF Definition header settings otherwise furture versions may decide to switch to the new tables (Compatiblity setting). And we've found that on occasion 4.6c Transports have a nasty habit of re-initialising some of these defaults...

5. Dummy nodes in ECC 6 cause havoc until a Block Correction is carried out, as you have found out. These go away but come back if you re-import from 4.6c iof course. Nice! The fault is deep down in the new logic for determining step types and the fact that ECC 6 adds an extra piece of data somewhere to define a dummy block that you can't transport.

6. Multi-line tables now have to be handled with a brand new container element that 4.6c can't deal with. That was a fun one to work out. You actually have to hack your binding in text editor mode to insert the new syntax  if you want to pacth this kind of thing up (WFParForEach).
 The Transport mechanism in 4.6c can only succeed in delivering changes where the tables in ECC 6 have remained in place and are still in use. Thankfully this means that in most cases the changes to actual step logic and binding does make it through, but be careful where the new logic being added is based on new container elements (see 3).  To be fair I appreciate SAP's dilemma a bit because the jump from 4.6c to ECC 6 in terms of Workflow is subtle but huge. The addition of XI/PI/BPM (whatever they call it now) and the whole revamp of the Workflow engine in ABAP Classes has meant a complete rethink in a lot of key areas.  But I think clients are currently faced with a painful choice at the moment which leaves a sour taste in my mouth to be honest. They either send Transports through and patch things up manually (as we have had to do) or they carry out parallel changes and keep their development codestreams apart (at the risk of missing stuff). Either way the upgrade becomes quite a pain if you use Workflow a lot. By the way, be aware that the tables for Event Linkages have also changed, so SWETYPV is based on a completely different table view and hence Transports from 4.6c are utterly useless. Regards, Mike GT

From: keohan at ll.mit.eduTo: sap-wug at mit.eduDate: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:35:41 -0500Subject: ECC Upgrade - WF Transport Issues?

Hi All,

We are upgrading from 4.6c to ECC 6. 
Some workflow definitions that were originally built in 4.6c have trouble when a corrected version is transported to QA.
I am talking only about definitions – not instances.    
Here’s the long version…

WF Definition (originally built in 4.6c) in Development system (ECC 6) then transports to QA (ECC 6)
1)      Had errors in block structure, corrected via WF Builder (Extras> Special Functions> Block Correction
2)      Tranported to QA 
3)      WF Definition was not updated in QA with first transport, header data did not reflect change version from date of first transport
4)      Transport logs ineffective (although they do report error 8)
5)      Generated new version in Dev.  Transported to QA.  No Transport errors
6)      New version ‘appears’ to be in QA

7)      Check on WF – SWUD In Dev:

But in QA:  (Workflow Definition does not exist????)
:

8) PFTC_DIS In Dev (OK, warnings, but so what):

In QA:

I am scouring OSS Notes.  We do get the warnings in QA when entering PFTC_DIS with various container elements (‘Container element TYPEID is not used’, Message No. WD315).   So far notes seem to address elements *missing* from the workflow containers (related to workflow instances, not definitions), Container elements missing (RSWF_CNT_BOR_ELEM_REPLACE), but this workflow was fine in Dev and the elements referred to do exist in QA… 

Any tips would be appreciated.Thanks
Sue
----
Susan R. Keohan
SAP Workflow Specialist
Enterprise Applications
Information Services Department
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street, LI-200
Lexington, MA. 02420
781-981-3561
keohan at LL.MIT.EDU

Read amazing stories to your kids on Messenger Try it Now!
_________________________________________________________________
See the most popular videos on the web 
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20081106/1fccab29/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23144 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20081106/1fccab29/attachment.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17208 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20081106/1fccab29/attachment-0001.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 43300 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20081106/1fccab29/attachment-0002.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 34876 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20081106/1fccab29/attachment-0003.jpg